search_issues

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add meaningful context by clarifying the search spans both issues and merge requests across repositories. However, it does not disclose result format, pagination behavior, ordering, or whether only accessible projects are searched.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the action, resource, and scope efficiently, which is ideal for agent parsing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a low-complexity search with fully documented parameters, and the description covers the core behavior. However, the absence of an output schema and any mention of what the search returns leaves a moderate gap for an agent, though not a critical one for basic selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents q, page, and perPage clearly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for fully documented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('issues and merge requests') and scope ('across GitLab repositories'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_repositories, search_code, and search_users, as well as from list_issues and get_issue.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions, but 'Search for...' implies this tool is for finding issues and merge requests matching a query, as opposed to listing or fetching a single item. Usage guidance is present only implicitly, not explicitly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.